Subject: [nfsv4] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:57:25 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this.

I had one readability issue -- I find:
" control communication requirements:  are for a layout type the
      details regarding information on layouts, stateids, file metadata,
      and file data which must be communicated between the metadata
      server and the storage devices."

to be very hard to read. I tried for a while to break this up into multiple
sentences but was unable. It would be nice if the authors could succeed where I
failed...

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:27:02 -0400

My suggestion would be to delete the phrase "for a layout type" and instead
add a second sentence "There is a separate set of requirements for each
layout type".

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

---

From: Tom Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:34:40 -0700

Thanks Warren, Ill try to clean it up.

> On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Tom Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:27:07 -0700

Hi Warren (and likewise Dave),

I went with:

   control communication requirement:  is the specification for
      information on layouts, stateids, file metadata, and file data
      which must be communicated between the metadata server and the
      storage devices.  There is a separate set of requirements for each
      layout type.

> On Apr 16, 2018, at 4:34 PM, Tom Haynes <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:11:17 -0400

>       storage devices.  There is a separate set of requirements for each

Nice! Thank you...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf